California. of Fish ana Gair.e " Dept. §iennial Report 1903-1904. ^jifTi'nxP ''C^<\•i-^r^^.i^Y^ Wmm "'»«'' Hi Ul. i. iGOMMISSIONE California. Dept. of Fish and Game, Biennial Report 1903-1904. (bound volume) DATE DUE _^ California- Dept. of Fish and Game. Biennial Report 1903-1904. ^ (bound volume) — APR X5'93 y^l ^o '93 California Resources Agency Library 1416 9th Street, Room 117 Sacramento, California 95814 .P.A!; *f^y liiUk^u. / EIGHTEENTH BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE State Board of Fish Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE YE^LRS 1903-1904. COMMISSIONERS: W. W. VAN ARSDALE, President, San Francisco. W. E. GERBER, - - - - Sacramento. CHAS. A. VOGELSANG, Chief Deputy, Mills Building, San Francisco, Cal. SACRAMENTO: : : state W. W. SHANNON, : superintendent printing. 1904. EIGHTEENTH BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. To Hon. George C. Pardee, Governor of the State of California : Sir: In accordance with law, the vState Board of Fish Commissioners has the honor to siihmit for your consideration its Eighteenth Biennial Report, being a record of its work and expenditures from September 1, 1902, to September 1, 1904. We submit, also, the recommendations which our experience in carry- ing on this important work has suggested, as tending, in our jvidgment, to the betterment of both the fish and the game interests. Since the Seventeenth Biennial Report was suVmiitted, the personnel of this Board has undergone one change. H. W. Keller tendered his resignation on April 24, 1903. On May 6, 1903, W. W. Van Arsdale Avas elected President of the Board, vice H. W. Keller, resigned. Regular meetings of the Board have been held during the first of every month, and at such other times as became necessary to the wel- fare of our work. Complete niiiuites of all the meetings are on file in our office, rooms 508 and 509, Mills Building, San Francisco. Duplicate bills of every item drawn against the appropriations over which we have control are also on file, and records of the same are on our min- ute and account books. On November 29, 1903, the California Fish Commission and all the people interested in the restoration and preservation of the salmon industry of the Pacific Coast sustained an irreparable loss by the death of Mr. Cloudsley Rutter. Mr. Rutter had been stationed on this coast by the United States Fish Commission for a term of years to study out some of the disputed questions regarding the salmon of the Pacific. He was an earnest, intelligent student of all forms of fish life, but his chief work was a study of our salmon, especially the Quinnat, or salmon of the Sacramento River. He had perhaps a more varied and general experience on this subject than any ichthyologist of this country, as he covered not only the scientific but also the practical side of the question. Naturally a man of great ability and force, he devoted all his energy and attainments to the work before him. He was frequently in our service and contributed valuable data and reports that threw light on many conflicting opinions regarding the 6 REPORT OF STATE HOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. movements and liahits of salmon. No undertaking was too difficult, no problem too hard to discourage him. He left behind him important notes, which, had he been spared to complete them, would have added nuich more to his reputation. At the time of his death he was filling the important position of naturalist on the United States Fish Com- mission's steamer Albatross. From his complete and interesting " " report, entitled Natural History of the Quinnat Salmon (covering a period of five years, 1896 to 1901), which appeared in the bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 1902, volume XXII, we have taken some important and interesting extracts. A second article from his pen, on the value of artificial propagation, will also be found in the appendix to this report. We commend these papers to the careful attention of all who are interested in the subject of increasing a natural food supply by artificial methods. We regret that space does not permit " us to reprint in full his report on Investigations in the Sacramento River." The work of patroling the various streams and bays of this State in the enforcement of the fish laws has been intelligently and con- scientiously carried on to the full extent of our means. The last session of the Legislature granted an increase in our "fund for the restoration and preservation of game." It was timely, and enabled us to cover more territory in the mountainous districts than has ever before been done. At the same time, our appropriation for this purpose ($7,500 per year) is, in our opinion, ridiculously small when the size of the State and the varieties of game are considered. But few of the counties appoint game wardens. They seem to look to this Board for enforce- ment of the fish and game laws. It is a notorious fact that constables, who are sworn to enforce the provisions of the Penal Code, are blind to violations of these laws. It is only in rare cases that we find one who is willing to assist in this work. In some counties it has been necessary for the District Attorney to issue special instructions to these officers in regard to their duties in this particular, but the results have not been encouraging. Where an active, intelligent man has been appointed county game warden, we feel that it has been done in response to the pressure of public sentiment. Such officers have created a wholesome respect for the law and for the office, and have assisted us materially. They have made arrests and assisted our deputies in obtaining evidence that secured convictions. The territory covered by our limited force is so vast that we can not afford to keep a man long in one section. The deputies are hurried about from one end of the State to the other. The fund for the restoration and preservation of game should be increased $5,000, making a total of $12,500 per annum to be expended by this Conanission. This would enable us to increase our force of field deputies by four. When it is considered that California is the REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 7 second largest State in the Union and that Eastern States not one sixth of its size, with Httle or no mountainous sections, are using two and three times this amount of money to enforce the laws for the restora- tion and preservation of game, it will be seen how modest is our request in asking for an increase of $5,000. Some of our fellow citizens, realizing that violations of the fish and game laws constantly occur, propose to cure the evil by making radical changes. In our opinion this is not the proper remedy. We have suffi- cient laws on our statute books, but the means to enforce them are inadequate. We will, however, recommend a number of changes that, in our judgment, based upon our experience at court and with "public sentiment," will produce the desired effect; in some cases shortening the seasons, as for example the deer law. Experience has shown that the long open season that was allowed at the last session of the Legisla- ture, with the hope that the Boards of Supervisors would reduce it in their respective counties to two months, has not been carried out, with a result that some counties, with a better appreciation of the value of their deer, have a season of but six weeks, while others allow the full three months and a half. Careful consideration of the subject has brought the conclusion that a State law allowing an open season of two months, and applying to all counties alike, would be the fairest and most equitable settlement of the question. In our opinion the present duck law should be amended. Our first recommxcndation would be to reduce the bag limit from fifty to twenty- five. This undoubtedly will be contested by many of the preserve sportsmen, as on their baited ponds and patroled lands the growing scarcity of ducks is hardly, if at all, noticeable. Twenty-five ducks is three times the number that one man and his family could use in a single day, and is practically all that can be carried. One of the argu- ments advanced to retain the bag limit of fifty is that there are many days on which the sportsman goes to his preserve and does not get his full limit, in fact sometimes gets not more than a dozen birds, but this is probably due to weather or other local conditions. Is it not reason- able to suppose that if the bag limit is reduced one half, there will be shoot a larger number of birds left, which will bring the average day's nearer to the bag limit of twenty-five? We would also include the dove in the bag-limit reduction; and would recommend that doves, snipe, rail, and other shore birds be added to the non-sale list. With a few minor changes in the laws relating to the preservation of fish, we believe the best interests of the State will be served. We believe in following a liberal but progressive policy, from year to year, forging ahead and carrying with us public sentiment, the support of which is absolutely essential to a proper enforcement of these laws. 8 REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. Public sentiment favorable to game protection is not created by the passage of radical measures.